ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 7,
1995
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
)
)
PETITION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER
)
R95-14
RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER
)
(Site-Specific
CHICAGO FOR SITE-SPECIFIC WATER
)
Rulemaking
-
Water)
QUALITY REGULATION FOR CYANIDE
)
(Amendments to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code
)
303 and 304)
)
Proposed Rule.
Second Notice.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.C.
Fleinal):
This matter comes before the Board upon a proposal to amend
the Board’s water quality regulations for cyanide filed by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
(District).
The District requests that the existing General Use
chronic standard (CS) for weak acid dissociable
(WAD)
cyanide be
changed from 5.2 ~g/L to 10 ~ig/Las applied to the West Branch of
the DuPage River, Higgins Creek,
Salt Creek, and the Des Plaines
River within Cook County.
The Board’s responsibility in this matter arises from the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1994)).
The Board is charged therein to “determine, define and implement
the environmental control standards applicable in the State of
Illinois”
(415 ILCS 5/5(b)).
More generally,
the Board’s
rulemaking charge is based on the system of checks and balances
integral to Illinois environmental governance:
the Board bears
responsibility for the rulemaking and principal adjudicatory
functions; the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
has primary responsibility for administration of the Act and the
Board’s regulations, including today’s proposed regulation.
By today’s action the Board adopts the proposed amendments
with modifications for the purpose of second notice, pursuant to
the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1—1 et
seq.
(1994)).
This matter will now be filed with the Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules
(JCAR)
for consideration by that body.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The District filed its proposal on April 28,
1995.
By order
of May 4,
1995 the Board accepted the proposal for hearing.
—2—
A public hearing was held before hearing officer Audrey
Lozuk—Lawless in Chicago on June 30,
1995.
The District
presented the testimony of Dr. Cecil Lue-Hing, Director of
Research and Development at the District;
Dr. Richard G. Luthy,
Professor and Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University; and Dr. Herbert Allen,
Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of
Delaware.
Dr. Lue—Hing presented an overview of the District’s
petition, including discussion of the existing WAD cyanide
standard and studies the District has undertaken of that
standard.
Dr. Lue-Hing additionally addressed the economic
impact to the District and the water quality of the rivers
impacted by the proposed new standard.
Dr. Luthy addressed the methodology for WAD cyanide
analysis,
including the precision and accuracy of the WAD cyanide
test.
Dr. Allen addressed the methodologies for determining a
WAD cyanide CS.
Four public comments
(PC) were filed prior to first notice:
Chicago Metal Finishers Institute (PC #1), Illinois Association
of Wastewater Agencies
(PC #2), the District (PC #3), and the
Agency
(PC #4).
All comments support adoption of the District’s
proposal.
By order of August 24,
1995 the Board adopted the District’s
proposal’ for first notice.
First notice publication occurred at
19
Illinois Register
12583
(September
8,
1995).
Three public comments have been filed subsequent to first
notice: PC #5 and #7 by the District and PC #6 by the Agency.
PC
#5 consists of a list of the 595 facilities that constitute
significant industrial users
(SIU5)
of the District’s wastewater
treatment facilities.
In PC #6 the Agency repeats its support of
the proposal and makes additional suggestions for improving the
language of the proposal (see following).
PC #7 is an analysis
of the budgetary and economic effects of the proposal.
BACKGROUND
The District is a unit of government with jurisdiction
within part of Cook County,
Illinois.
Among the duties of the
District is operation of water reclamation plants
(WRPs),
which,
~ The proposal as adopted for first notice contained several
modifications relative to the proposal as originally filed with
the Board.
The basis for making these modifications is discussed
in the Board’s first notice opinion of August 24 at p. 7—8.
—3—
as part of their normal activities, produce discharges to local
waterways.
The Board has established water quality standards for the
streams of the State,
including streams within the area served by
the District.
Among these standards are two standards for
cyanide2 that apply to the General Use Waterways to which the
District discharges.
These are a chronic standard (CS) with a
value of 5.2 ~g/L and an acute standard
(AS) of 22 ~g\L.
The
parameter to be measured in both cases is WAD cyanide, identified
by the STORET number 00718.
At issue in the instant proceedings are three of the
District’s seven
WRPs
and the General Use Water Quality streams
to which they discharge.
These are:
WRP
Receiving Stream
ADF*
Hanover Park
West Branch DuPage River
8.87
John E. Egan
Salt Creek
24.5
James C. Kirie
Higgins Creek
31.8
=
Average 1994 daily flow in million gallons per day)
Each of the three receiving streams has a 7—day,
10—year low
flow of zero at the point of discharge.
The three receiving
streams are tributary to a fourth stream of interest, the Des
Plaines River.
In 1993 the Agency issued renewed National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits for the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRP5.
In these permits the Agency for the
first time included numerical effluent limits based on the
cyanide water quality standards3.
These effluent limits for the
two plants are 5.2 and 5.0 ~g/L, respectively, measured as
monthly average
WAD
cyanide, and 22 pg/L measured as daily
maximum WAD cyanide.
The NPDES cyanide limits were set equal to the cyanide CS,
in keeping with the permit-writing practice applicable to streams
that have 7—day,
10—year low flows of zero.
Prior to the 1993 issuance of the NPDES permits at issue,
the District had not conducted routine analysis of effluent
2
These standards are found at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208 (d).
They were adopted in Board proceeding R88-21(A)
(In the matter
of: Amendments to Title 35. Subtitle C
(Toxics Control)),
effective February 13,
1990.
~ Upon petition from the District the Agency has set the
effective date for the cyanide limits to October
1,
1996.
—4—
cyanide.
However, analyses conducted subsequently at both the
Hanover Park and James C.
Kirie WRP5 have suggested to the
District that a
5 ~g\L monthly average4 of
WAD
cyanide would
often be equaled or exceeded.
In this circumstance the District
believes that compliance with the monthly averages currently
expressed in the permits is problematic.
The District believes
that the solution lies in examination of the rationale for the
cyanide General Use CS, and bases the instant petition on that
examination.
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The District has identified four factors that it believes
give technical justification for a CS standard of 10 ~&g/L5.
These are:
1.
The indigenous species used in calculating
fish toxicities are not applicable to the
waterways named in the District’s proposal.
2.
Use of WAD cyanide for determining water
quality standards is not directly related to
toxicity as compared to use of free cyanide.
3.
Chlorine interferes with the WAD cyanide
test.
4.
The regulatory limits are at or below the
limit of detection.
The Board will address each of these in turn.
Use of Indigenous Species
Determination of AS and CS water qualit1 standards is
accomplished by a well-established procedure that involves
~ The District believes that it would have no difficulty
complying with the 22 j~g/Ldaily limits.
~ This value is expressed in the record both as
10 ~~g/Land
10.0 j~g/L. The Agency recommends
(PC #4 at ¶6), and the Board
agrees, that in view of concerns regarding precision of WAD
cyanide analyses,
10
Jhg/L is the preferred form.
6
The procedures are given in Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Ouality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, NTIS PB85—227049.
Similar
procedures are present in the Board’s regulations at 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 302.Subpart F: Procedures for Determining Water Quality
—5—
consideration of the toxicity of the substance in question to a
range of aquatic organisms.
In fresh—water environments such as
under concern here,
the procedures and cyanide data base are such
that the four fish species most sensitive to cyanide determine
the calculated standards7.
The current CS cyanide standard of 5.2 ~g/L was established
based upon a calculation that included toxicities to rainbow
trout, brook trout, yellow perch,
and bluegill as the four
species in question.
However, the District observes that rainbow
trout, which is the most sensitive of the four species to
cyanide, are not indigenous to the District’s waterways.
The District notes that rainbow trout have never been
observed in any of the extensive fish collections made by the
District.
(Proposal at p.
45-51:
Tr. at 25.)
Moveover, the
District observes that rainbow trout, which are a coldwater fish
species, are intolerant of the warmwater environments at issue
here.
(Proposal at p.
50-54.)
If rainbow trout are not included in the cyanide CS
calculation, the four most sensitive species become the four
fishes: brook trout8, yellow perch, bluegill, and black crappie.
When these four species are used, the calculated CS value for
cyanide becomes 9.799 ~g/L.
(Tr. at 41-42; Exh.
2 at 6.)
The
District recommends that this value, rounded to 10 ~g/L, be the
CS applicable in the District’s waterways.
The Agency agrees that rainbow trout are not a species
indigenous to the District’s waterways.
(Tr. at 62-63.)
The
Agency further observes that excluding rainbow trout from the CS
calculation for the streams at issue is consistent with federal
guidance and that the resultant cyanide CS of 10 ,~tg/Lis
protective of existing and expected aquatic life.
(PC #4 at ¶2.)
Criteria.
~ Application of the procedures, including selection of data
and calculations using the data to produce the CS values
discussed herein,
is detailed in the testimony of Dr. Allen at
Pr.
35-42 and Exh.
2.
The Agency has independently undertaken
the analysis, and confirms the results obtained by Dr. Allen.
(Tr. at 54.)
8
At hearing it was noted that brook trout do not occur in the
waterways at issue, and that yellow perch are rare (Tr. at 51-54).
Nevertheless, no suggestion has been made that these species also
be excluded from the CS calculation; if brook trout are excluded,
the calculated CS would be 10.9 /Lg/L
(Tr. at 54).
—6—
WAD Cyanide Toxicity
Cyanide occurs in natural aquatic environments in a number
of forms.
Among these are HCN, CN, and complexes of cyanide
with metals
(e.g.,
ferrocyanide).
The
WAD
cyanide measurement
procedure measures all three of these forms.
However,
it is
generally recognized that only the first two forms, HCN and CN
(collectively called free cyanide),
significantly contribute to
the toxicity of cyanide.
(Tr. at 44,)
Thus, analyses of WAD
cyanide overestimates the toxicity of the cyanide in direct
proportion to the amount of inetallocyanide complexes present in
any sample.
This problem would be eliminated if free cyanide could be
measured directly.
However, there currently is no approved
method for analysis of free cyanide in natural samples.
(Tr. at
29,
45;
Exh.
3 at 2.)
Thus,
analysis of WAD cyanide must be used
in default.
The District observes that for these reasons, WAD cyanide is
a conservative measure of cyanide toxicity.
(Tr. at 29.)
Nevertheless, at the low levels of metals and cyanide in the
District’s effluent, there should be little difference between
the expected free cyanide concentrations and measured WAD cyanide
concentrations.
(Tr. at 59.)
Chlorine Interference
The District has completed 16½ months of detailed WAD
cyanide sampling and analysis in effluents from the Hanover Park
and James C. Kirie WRP5.
In both data sets the District observes
that measured
WAD
cyanide concentrations were higher during the
months of May through October than in November through April9.
The only consistent difference in inflow or operational
parameters between these two time periods is that during May
through October both WRPs employ chlorination/dechlorination
procedures.
The District observes that during the summer of 1994, when
the correlation between chlorination/dechlorination was becoming
evident,
it undertook a study of the fate of WAD cyanide
concentrations during the treatment process, including sampling
~At the Hanover Park WRP, the WAD cyanide concentrations on
the final effluent were 1.0 to 2.0 ~g/L during November through
April, versus 4.0 to 6.0 ~Lg/Lduring Nay through October.
(Exh.
1 at Table 1.)
At the James C. Kirie WRP
WAD
cyanide
concentrations were 1.0 to 2.0 pg/L during November through
April, versus 3.0 to 4.0 ~g/L during May through October.
(Exh.
1 at Table 2.)
—7—
prior to and after chlorination.
(Tr. at 31-32;
Exh.
1 at 11.)
The results verified that chlorination causes an increase in the
reported WAD cyanide concentrations
(a.),
although it remains
uncertain whether the increase is caused by an analytical
interference or by a chemical reaction that produces new cyanide
(Pr. at 55—57).
Detection Limit
The District observes that Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater,
18th edition,
lists the
limit of detection for WAD cyanide as 5 to 20
,~Lg/L, depending
upon the sample matrix.
(Proposal at 57.)
The District
observes, accordingly, that a standard at 5.2 ~tg/Llies at the
threshold of and “perhaps beyond the limits of existing
laboratory analytical methodology”
(u.).
In addition, Dr. Luthy, who chairs the task group that
prepared the section on cyanide for the current edition of
Standard Methods, notes that the single operator precision for
the determination of WAD cyanide is about
8 ~g/L for samples in
the range 5-10
Jhg/L.
(Pr. at 47;
Exh.
3 at 3.)
He concludes
that considerable variation should be expected in such low—level
samples, and that “it would be improper to ascribe great
significance to sample analyses in this range”
(Id.).
ECONOMICS
The District has calculated the cost of replacing the
chlorination/dechlorination system at the Hanover Park and James
C. Kirie WRPs.
(Proposal at 24, Attachment 7.)
The District
calculated estimates of replacing the existing system with
ultraviolet radiation
(UV) and ozone disinfection.
The
calculations indicate that ozonation would be the least costly
replacement alternative.
The District’s total cost to replace
the current chlorination/dechlorination system with an ozonation
system would be $5,699,728 in construction costs, with an annual
operating cost of $164,200.
(~~)
The total annualized capital
plus operating cost for both
WRPs
would be $830,097.
(~~)
These expenses do not include any costs for replacing the
existing chlorination/dechlorination system at the John E. Egan
WRP.
The District notes that even with this expenditure, there is
no guarantee that an ozonation system would not produce increases
in
WAD
cyanide as observed during chlorination/dechlorination.
—8—
AGENCY’S RECOMMENDED TEXTURAL MODIFICATIONS
At ¶s
9 and 10 of PC #6 the Agency comments on two possible
modifications to the regulatory text as proposed for first
notice.
Neither of these modifications would change the relief
requested.
The District has not responded to the Agency’s
observations.
The principal modification is with respect to the District’s
request to add a new subsection at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.201(d).
That subsection would establish an effluent standard of
10 ~g/L
(as a monthly average concentration subject to the averaging
provisions of Section 304.104(a))
explicitly for the Egan,
Hanover Park,
and Kirie WRPs’°.
As the Agency observes, the proposed subsection
(d)
is
unnecessary for the purposes of establishing an NPDES permit
limit for cyanide for the three WRPs,
inasmuch as standard
permit—writing procedures already serve this purpose.
If fact,
the Hanover Park and Kirie
WRPs
already have in their NPDES
permits a cyanide limit of
22 ~g/L, expressed as a daily maximum
concentration (see above).
The value of 22 ~g/L, according to
standard procedures,
is equal to the 22 ~g/L acute water quality
standard for cyanide.
If, however, the language of subsection
(d) were to be
adopted as proposed, the standard NPDES permit-writing procedures
would could cause the daily maximum permit limit for cyanide to
be 20 ,~g/L(twice the monthly average of 10 ~g/L).
This limit is
more stringent than currently exists by 2 ~g/L.
The Agency
concludes that it “would have no objection if the proposed
addition of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.201(d) was withdrawn”
(PC #6 at
¶10).
The Board believes that 35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.201(d) as
proposed for first notice is unnecessary, and accordingly today
deletes it from further consideration.
10
The full text,
as proposed for first notice,
was:
~
John
E.
Egan,
Hanover Park.
and James
C.
Kirie Water
Reclamation Plants
The discharges of the John
E.
Egan,
Hanover Park,
and
James C. Kirie Water Reclamation Plants must meet a weak
acid dissociable cyanide (STORET 00718) effluent standard
of
10
ug/L,
sub-ject to the averaging rule of Section
304.104(a)
—9—
The Agency’s second consideration for modification concerns
35 Ill. Adm. Code 304.201(c).
At first notice the subsection was
proposed to be modified only to the extent of changing the name
of the District from Metropolitan Sanitary District to
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.
Now, however, the
Agency observes that the substance of the subsection is a
requirement that the District submit a water quality report at a
date past.
On this basis the Agency believes the subsection is
“obsolete” and therefore that it can be deleted rather than
simply amended.
The Board accepts the Agency recommendation that subsection
304.201(C) be deleted,
and accordingly today adopts that change.
STATE-WIDE APPLICABILITY
In the first notice opinion and order in this matter the
Board observed that the Agency at hearing had postulated that the
cyanide CS standard might be better amended to 10 ~~g/Las a
state-wide rule than as a site-specific rule.
(Tr. at 62—63.)
It was also observed that the justification presented by the
District might apply not only to the waters to which the District
discharges, but to all General Use waters within the State
excluding Lake Michigan, and that accordingly it might be most
administratively economical to amend the cyanide standard
generally, rather than in piecemeal site—specific fashion.
Prior to first notice the Agency indicated that it was
pursuing these thoughts by engaging in discussions with
interested persons regarding a state-wide proposal,
“after which
a proposal may be filed”
(PC #4 at ¶9).
More recently, the
Agency “repeats its intent to develop and propose a general
rulemaking”
(PC #6 at ¶6), but nevertheless urges that the Board
“not delay in reaching a decision on the merits of the site
specific proposal of the District” (J~.at ¶7).
CONCLUSION
The Board believes that the District has presented evidence
warranting the adoption of the proposed amendments, modified as
discussed herein,
for the purpose of second notice.
ORDER
The Board hereby directs that second notice of the following
proposed amendments be submitted to the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules.
—10-•
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 303
WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SUBPART A:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section
303.100
303.101
303.102
Section
303.200
303.201
303.202
303.203
303.204
Scope and Applicability
Multiple Designations
Rulemaking Required
SUBPART B:
NONSPECIFIC WATER USE DESIGNATIONS
Scope and Applicability
General Use Waters
Public and Food Processing Water Supplies
Underground Waters
Secondary Contact and Indigenous Aquatic Life Waters
SUBPART C:
SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Section
303
•
300
303.301
303
•
311
303
•
312
303.321
303
•
322
303
•
323
303
•
331
303.341
303.351
303.352
303
•
353
303.361
303.400
303.430
303.431
303.441
303.442
303.443
303 .444
Scope and Applicability
Organization
Ohio River Temperature
Waters Receiving Fluorspar Mine Drainage
Wabash River Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of the Vermilion River
Sugar Creek and Its Unnamed Tributary
Mississippi River North Temperature
Mississippi River North Central Temperature
Mississippi River South Central Temperature
Unnamed Tributary of Wood River Creek
Schoenberger Creek; Unnamed Tributary of Cahokia Canal
Mississippi River South Temperature
Bankline Disposal Along the Illinois Waterway Rivers
Unnamed Tributary to Dutch Creek
Long Point Slough and Its Unnamed Tributary
Secondary Contact Waters
Waters Not Designated for Public Water Supply
Lake Michigan
Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, West Branch of the DuPage
River. Des Plaines River
—11—
SUBPART D:
THERMAL DISCHARGES
Section
303.500
Scope and Applicability
303.502
Lake Sangchris Thermal Discharges
303.Appendix A References to Previous Rules
303.Appendix B Sources of Codified Sections
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at
2
Ill. Reg.
27,
p.
221, effective July 5,
1978;
amended at
3 Ill.
Reg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at 5 Ill. Reg.
11592, effective October 19,
1981; codified at 6
Ill. Reg.
7818; amended at 6 Ill. Reg.
11161, effective September
7,
1982; amended at 7 Ill. Reg.
8111, effective June 23,
1983;
amended in R87—27 at 12 Ill. Reg.
9917, effective May 27,
1988;
amended in R87—2 at 13 Ill. Reg. 15649, effective September 22,
1989; amended in R87-36 at 14 Ill. Reg.
9460, effective May 31,
1990;
amended in R86-14 at 14 Ill. Reg. 20724, effective December
18,
1990;
amended in R89—14(C) at 16 Ill. Reg.
14684, effective
September 10,
1992; amended in R92—17 at 18 Ill.
Reg. at 2981
effective February 14,
1994; amended in R91—23 at 18
Ill. Reg.
13457, effective August
19,
1994; amended in R93—13 at 19 Ill.
Reg. 1310 effective January 30,
1995; amended in R95-14 at 19
Ill. Reg.
______________
effective
_______________
SUBPART C: SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATIONS
AND
SITE SPECIFIC WATER
QUALITY
STANDARDS
Section
303.444
Salt
Creek,
Higgins
Creek,
West
Branch
of
the
DuPage River, Des Plaines River
The General Use chronic water quality standard for cyanide
(STORET number 00718) contained in Section 302.208 does not apply
to Salt Creek, Higgins Creek, the West Branch of the DuPage
River.
and the Des Plaines River in Cook County,
Illinois.
Instead, for these waters the chronic cyanide standard is
10
ug/L.
(Source:
Amended at 19 Ill. Reg.
_________,
effective
______________________________________________________________________________________________ )
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
SUBTITLE C:
WATER POLLUTION
CHAPTER I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
—12—
PART 304
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
SUBPART
A:
GENERAL
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
Section
304.101
304.102
304
•
103
304.104
304.105
304.106
304
•
120
304.121
304.122
304.123
304.124
304.125
304.126
304.140
304.141
304.142
Section
304.201
304
•
202
304.203
304.204
304.205
304.206
304.207
304.208
304.209
304.210
304.211
304.212
304.213
304.214
304.215
304.216
304.218
304
•
219
Preamble
Dilution
Background Concentrations
Averaging
Violation of Water Quality Standards
Offensive Discharges
Deoxygenating Wastes
Bacteria
Nitrogen
(STORET number 00610)
Phosphorus
(STORET number 00665)
Additional Contaminants
pH
Mercury
Delays in Upgrading (Repealed)
NPDES Effluent Standards
New Source Performance Standards
(Repealed)
SUBPART B:
SITE
SPECIFIC
RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS NOT OF
GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of the
Metropolitan Sanitary Water Reclamation District of
Greater Chicago
Chior-alkali Mercury Discharges in St. Clair County
Copper Discharges by Olin Corporation
Schoenberger Creek:
Groundwater Discharges
John Deere Foundry Discharges
Alton Water Company Treatment Plant Discharges
Galesburg Sanitary District Deoxygenating Wastes
Discharges
City of Lockport Treatment Plant Discharges
Wood River Station Total Suspended Solids Discharges
Alton Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges
Discharges From Borden Chemicals and Plastics Operating
Limited Partnership Into an Unnamed Tributary of Long
Point Slough
Sanitary District of Decatur Discharges
UNO-VEN Refinery Ammonia Discharge
Mobil Oil Refinery Ammonia Discharge
City of Tuscola Wastewater Treatment Facility
Discharges
Newton Station Suspended Solids Discharges
City of Pana Phosphorus Discharge
North Shore Sanitary District Phosphorus Discharges
—13—
304.220
East St. Louis Treatment Facility,
Illinois-American
Water Company
304.221
Ringwood Drive Manufacturing Facility in McHenry County
304.222
Intermittent Discharge of TRC
SUBPART C:
TEMPORARY EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Section
304.301
Exception for Ammonia Nitrogen Water Quality Violations
304.302
City of Joliet East Side Wastewater Treatment Plant
304.303
Amerock Corporation, Rockford Facility
Appendix A
References to Previous Rules
AUTHORITY:
Implementing Section 13 and authorized by Section 27
of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/13 and 27).
SOURCE:
Filed with the Secretary of State January
1,
1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg.
30,
p.
343, effective July 27,
1978;
amended at 2 Ill. Reg.
44,
p.
151, effective November 2,
1978;
amended at 3 Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
95, effective May 17,
1979; amended
at
3 Ill. Reg.
25,
p.
190, effective June 21,
1979;
amended at 4
Ill. Reg.
20,
p.
53 effective May 7,
1980; amended at 6 Ill. Req.
563, effective December 24,
1981; codified at
6 Ill. Reg.
7818:
amended at 6 Ill. Reg.
11161,
effective September 7,
1982;
amended at 6 Ill. Reg.
13750,
effective October 26,
1982; amended
at 7 Ill. Req.
3020, effective March 4,
1983; amended at 7 Ill.
Reg. 8111,
effective June 23,
1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg.
14515,
effective October 14,
1983; amended at 7 Ill. Reg.
14910,
effective November 14,
1983; amended at 7 Ill. Req. 14910,
effective November 14,
1983; amended at 8 Ill. Reg.
1600,
effective January 18,
1984;
amended at
8 Ill. Reg.
3687,
effective March 14,
1984; amended at 8 Ill. Reg.
8237, effective
June 8,
1984; amended at 9 Ill. Reg.
1379, effective January 21,
1985; amended at
9 Ill.
Reg.
4510, effective March 22,
1985;
peremptory amendment at 10 Ill. Reg.
456, effective December 23,
1985; amended at 11 Ill. Reg.
3117, effective January 28,
1987;
amended in R84—l3 at 11 Ill. Reg. 7291 effective April
3,
1987;
amended in R86—17(A) at 11 Ill. Req. 14748, effective August 24,
1987; amended in R84—16 at 12
Ill.
Reg.
2445, effective January
15,
1988; amended in R83—23 at 12
Ill.
Req.
8658, effective May
10,
1988; amended in R87—27 at 12
Ill.
Req.
9905, effective May
27,
1988; amended in R82—7
at 12
Ill. Req.
10712, effective June
9,
1988;
amended in R85—29 at 12
Ill. Reg.
12064, effective July
12,
1988; amended in R87—22 at 12 Ill. Reg.
13966, effective
August
23,
1988; amended in R86—3 at 12 Ill. Reg.
20126,
effective November 16,
1988;
amended in R84—20 at 13 Ill. Reg.
851, effective January 9,
1989;
amended in R85—11 at
13 Ill. Req.
2060, effective February 6,
1989; amended in R88—1 at 13 Ill.
Req. 5976, effective April 18,
1989; amended in R86—17B at 13
Ill. Reg.
7754, effective May 4,
1989; amended in R88—22 at 13
Ill. Req. 8880, effective May 26,
1989; amended in R87-6 at 14
—14—
Ill.
Reg.
6777,
effective
April
24,
1990; amended in R87—36 at 14
Ill.
Reg.
9437,
effective
May
31,
1990;
amended
in
R88-21(B)
at
14 Ill. Reg.
12538, effective July 18,
1990; amended in R84—44 at
14 Ill. Reg.
20719, effective December 11,
1990; amended in R86—
14 at 15 Ill.
Req. 241,
effective December 18,
1990; amended in
R87—33 at 18 Ill. Req.
11574, effective July 7,
1994; amended in
R94—1 at 19 Ill.
Reg.
_______,
effective ________________________
____________________________;
amended
in
R95—14
at
19
Ill.
Req.
_______________,.
effective
______________
BOARD
NOTE:
This
Part
implements
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
as
of
July
1,
1994.
SUBPART
B:
SITE
SPECIFIC
RULES
AND
EXCEPTIONS
NOT
OF
GENERAL
APPLICABILITY
Section 304.201
Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges of The
Metropolitan
Canitary
Water
Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
a)
Calumet Treatment Plant Cyanide Discharges:
The effluent standards of Section 304.124 as applied to
cyanide discharges,
Sections 304.120(b) and
(c) and Section
304.122
do
not
apply
to
BOD5,
total
suspended
solids,
cyanide, and ammonia—nitrogen discharged from the Calumet
Sewage Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead,
it must
meet the following effluent standard, subject to the
averaging
rule
of
Section
304.104(a),
effective
July
1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mpll)
CBOD5
80082
24
SS
00530
28
Ammonia
Nitrogen
00610
13
(as N)
Cyanide
00720
0.15
b)
North Side Sewage Treatment Works
The effluent standards of Sections 304.120(b)
and
(c) and
304.122 do not apply to BOD5, total suspended solids, and
ammonia—nitrogen discharged from the North Side Sewage
Treatment Works of The Metropolitan Sanitary Water
Reclamation District of Greater Chicago.
Instead, it must
—15—
meet the following standard, subject to the averaging rule
of Section
304.104(a)
effective July 1,
1988:
STORET
CONCENTRATION
CONSTITUENT
NUMBER
(mg/l)
CBOD5
80082
12
SS
00530
20
Ammonia Nitrogen
(as N)
April—October
00610
2.5
November-March
00610
4.0
waccr~J3y~vuiu~Lion
‘rho Metropolitan Canitary District of Creator Chicago ohall
complete and oubmit to the Board a comprehenclivo water
quality-evaluation of the Chicago Watcrway CyQtom and
itL3
influence on thc lower De3 Plainea and Uppcr Illinois Rivcrs
by January 15, 1~2.
Such evaluation ohall include
asoccamcnt
of pcrformancc lcvcls for North Side,
Calumet and
Ctickncy waotcwatcr reclamation plants and the extent of
sewer ovcrflow reduction through The Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Crcater Chicago’s -Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
(Source:
Amended at 19 Ill. Req.
__________,
effective
__________
)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the above opinion and order was
adoptçd
on
the
7~
day
of-e-,-~~&~
,
1995,
by a vote
of
(~
-0.
~.
Dorothy
M. ~4inn, Clerk
Illinois P~lutionControl Board
